We are doomed!
Posted by Storo 6 years, 9 months ago to Government
WE ARE DOOMED!
So a Republican controlled House, Senate and White House cannot find enough votes to repeal Obamacare. Even to pass Obamacare-lite, which I suppose repeals something, but leaves the mandates, taxes, and other aspects in place.
This shows that the many "repeal" votes taken during the Obama Administration were, as we all suspected, show votes by the GOP with no substance.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she would not vote for the latest repeal bill because of cuts included in the bill to Medicaid. Therein lies our doom.
If there is ever going to be any fiscal sanity brought to bear in Washington, and if the spending deficits and the National Debt is to ever be tackled, it MUST be by way of reforming entitlements. This would require changing of eligibility requirements, and an overall reduction in the size, scope and cost of these programs. But there is clearly no stomach for this among the Ruling Class in Washington because it would endanger the re-election hopes of anyone who votes to make these cuts. Why? Because 40% of the American people rely on government handouts to make ends meet. 45% are on food stamps. Illegal aliens - 20 Million of them - are allowed access to government benefits, making a bad situation even worse.
Given the lack of any appetite for cutting government spending on social programs, the only alternative path, short of armed revolution, is continuing down the road we are on, with increasing deficits, added trillions to the national debt, and eventual financial collapse. I.E. Doom.
http://mrkt.news/2-charts-show-next-recession-will-blow-us-budget/
So a Republican controlled House, Senate and White House cannot find enough votes to repeal Obamacare. Even to pass Obamacare-lite, which I suppose repeals something, but leaves the mandates, taxes, and other aspects in place.
This shows that the many "repeal" votes taken during the Obama Administration were, as we all suspected, show votes by the GOP with no substance.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she would not vote for the latest repeal bill because of cuts included in the bill to Medicaid. Therein lies our doom.
If there is ever going to be any fiscal sanity brought to bear in Washington, and if the spending deficits and the National Debt is to ever be tackled, it MUST be by way of reforming entitlements. This would require changing of eligibility requirements, and an overall reduction in the size, scope and cost of these programs. But there is clearly no stomach for this among the Ruling Class in Washington because it would endanger the re-election hopes of anyone who votes to make these cuts. Why? Because 40% of the American people rely on government handouts to make ends meet. 45% are on food stamps. Illegal aliens - 20 Million of them - are allowed access to government benefits, making a bad situation even worse.
Given the lack of any appetite for cutting government spending on social programs, the only alternative path, short of armed revolution, is continuing down the road we are on, with increasing deficits, added trillions to the national debt, and eventual financial collapse. I.E. Doom.
http://mrkt.news/2-charts-show-next-recession-will-blow-us-budget/
A full repeal without replacement is the only outcome I wish to see.
Full Repeal, that's it. Perhaps the Dems and media are actually doing us a favor, and we'll actually have no other alternative except a full repeal. Trump can do it without repercussions in his second term. Politics today are totally geared to re-election, not what is best for the country, the people of the country. Term Limits is another need, and real soon. And with term limits, most proven successful people could afford to give a few years, no charge, for the good of the country.
Ayn Rand said. That helps keep them in their place.
There are probably a handful who actually want to scale back the government but it is far short of a majority.
I do not think we've had a bad run of luck on the type of people elected to office. I think we have a system that rewards politicians who DO things and makes it difficult for anyone wanting to UNDO things to get elected.
I see the Constitution as attempting to prevent this state of affairs, but it's not working. The gov't HAS power over a large segment of the economy and people's lives, and to get elected politicians must promise to use it to DO things for people.
I do not have a solution; I think we'll decay in a slow undramatic fashion, which is a sad thought. It's tempting to think "If we do not start electing people who can contain gov't, the country will collapse in an apocalyptic fashion, leaving behind Utnapishtim, Noah, and other righteous people to build a better world." I think think this is a very simplistic flood-myth fantasy.
I like the idea of a Convention of States. Right now the Constitution's not working because there's no authority making it work. There must be a way to fix it.
So let's say the COS approved an amendment that repealed the 2nd Amendment. 38 states would need to ratify it. So it would only take 13 states to block it.
Thus, a "runaway convention" might try to do a lot of things, but there would be a very high bar they would have to jump over to have anything become law.
Those are three traits: Populist, Leftist, and Urban.
The only trait that matters to an Article V Convention is a fourth trait: support for limited gov't. For it to work, it would take support from Populists/Elitists, Leftist/Centrists/Right Wingers, and Urban/Rural who believe in Constitutionally limited gov't.
We need that group to be a majority. We should not need a majority because the Constitution was specifically set up to provide boundaries for the majority. But it is not working, so here we are 200 years later unfortunately needing the majority to accept limiting gov't.
"turning on the fire hose for those who would hydraulically mine away the mountain of freedom"
I've heard there are ways to prevent that from happening. I'm ready to accept some risk to get reform now, before it becomes an immediate crisis.
As far as the national debt when the country works with fiat currency and a banking monopoly there is no way to address the debt problem. Since all fiat currency is created by debt to pay off the debt would remove all currency from circulation and leave the debt of interest and no way to pay it. The country needs a monetary system (not policy that policymakers invent) that represents value and free trade (reality and an objective reaction to it). What America has is a monopolistic confidence game where the last person holding the dollar loses. We are demanding free enterprise using their arguments about monetary policy, no matter where we take a stand on the argument of collectivism we still lose.
The ACA will not be repealed anymore than Obama would end the war on terrorism and bring the troops home as he promised. He knew he couldn't do it, just made the promise to get elected and enriched by the policymakers after his term of office. He knows the ACA won't provide healthcare and doesn't care he is merely trying to sell the lie. Get ready for serious economic difficulties ahead and get used to living with them as long as 1) we continue to think we must have leaders and obey them and 2) you think the majority of people prefer liberty, they prefer slavery so expect its continuation.
I spoke to our first selectman about taking our town back from the state. He said it would be a great idea, if it is possible, because if they didn't take our tax money generated locally we would never need a loan or grant ever again and therefore never accountable to our progressive state government either.
We will be speaking again on possibly getting our local healthcare clinic to begin a program of taking care of our "individual" health emergencies for a set monthly fee, (like a local co-op)...thereby avoiding the health insurance trap and to hell with the congress and federal health care lawlessness.
He is willing to listen to other ideas I have to better prepare our town for the dim future we face. ie, local currency, food etc.
Yes!!!! More need to be aware of this........learn to understand it.............not easy, but very crucial.
1. A Balanced Budget Amendment. Pretty simple: Congress can't spend more than we take in (including interest expenses). I would make the maximum budget available based on the actual tax receipts from two years ago.
2. A Constitutional Amendment stating that no other legislation may come to the floor of either the House or Senate until the Constitutionally-mandated Budget has been passed - save a Declaration of War.
3. Repeal of the 17th Amendment. Return the election and oversight of Senators to their respective States.
4. Repeal of the 12th Amendment. Eliminate the party system of voting for President and Vice President on the same ticket. Return it to what it was: the highest vote-getter being President and second-most becoming Vice President with ties broken in the House of Representatives.
5. Increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives to one representative for every 200,000 citizens. (Employ the technology for remote meeting attendance!)
6. Restrict campaign financing support to only those constituents residing for voting purposes within a Representative's precinct. No PAC's, no Party fundraising - just grassroots donations and interests at play.
7. Eliminate ALL unions of government employees including teachers, air traffic controllers, etc.
8. A Constitutional Amendment putting the responsibility for funding of all Congressional offices and staffers on their represented States (this includes healthcare and retirement plans - if any).
9. A Constitutional Amendment setting the allowed Cabinet positions and limiting them to State, Treasury, Interior, and Justice. Additional Cabinet positions would have to be set and approved by Constitutional Amendment from that point forward.
As to PACs--people have a right to donate their own money to the causes they want to.
Higher tax rates don't translate to higher tax revenues however. That's one of the huge fallacies government lawmakers frequently make. Higher tax revenues have always been recognized after tax rates are lowered. See the presidencies of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. This proposal would encourage lower tax rates and higher resulting tax revenues. It would also spur both real income and business.
Remember, taxation is proportional to a degree to the number of transactions taking place in the market. Just as in business, you can get your revenue based on higher tax rates on fewer transactions (think luxury goods) or you can get the revenue based on tiny tax rates on many transactions (think grocery stores). If business slows down and tax revenues decrease, Congress will have little choice but to cut costs, decreasing the number of government services. And if they want to add a government service, they're going to have to lower tax rates to fund it without choking off what they already get because of diminishing returns (see the Laffer Curve). I'm certainly open to any flaws one might see in this arrangement, but it seems to me to have a lot of upside potential.
"As to PACs--people have a right to donate their own money to the causes they want to."
Yes. Sorry. What I'm talking about here are direct donations to candidates. People can run PAC's, but remember their messaging has to be on issues - not endorsement of specific candidates. What I want to do is limit the funding coming from outside groups who aren't even represented in the population of a given Representative holding sway (via donations) over how a candidate votes. Another note: this proposal would drastically undercut the entire basis for Party fundraising - since they wouldn't be able to give it back to the candidates or demand specific votes, etc. - which is what currently takes place. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties expect their leadership positions (Whip, Majority Leader, Speaker, Chair) to kick back to the Party itself a certain amount of funding just for holding that position. It makes the Party Leaders like Reince Preibus and Howard Dean de facto political leaders even though they aren't elected.
Actually, I would argue the corresponding inverse principle of no taxation without representation: no donation without representation. If you aren't living and voting in a precinct, you can't donate money to that candidate. I see this happening where I am with out-of-state donors giving money to specific candidates even though they have nothing to do with my area. Representation is supposed to be local. I'm sick of people like Bloomberg, Soros, and others trying to sway votes clear across the country from where they live just to further their agenda.
The intent all along was always to create an unpalatable situation to instill a desire for single payer. As P.J. O'Rourke has said many times, if you think medical care is expensive, wait until it's free. California voters wailed for single payer until the price came back at $400B/yr, requiring a tripling of the state's budget. Even if the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid were absorbed into a new "Medicare for all," as Bernie Sanders likes to call it, it would still require an additional $3 trillion added to an already bloated federal budget to provide single payer for all American residents.
I was assigned to Australia in the mid-70s when they tried single payer, and it promised exploding deficits. Fortunately for the Aussies, deficits are banned by their constitution. After the Labor government tried to sneak loans from Swiss bankers, the Governor General disbanded the government (the ultimate "You're fired"), and instituted new elections which resulted in a saner leadership. We don't have a Governor General like Commonwealth countries, who can impeach everyone at one time, so we're stuck with the doofuses we gullibly elect.
The answer lies in an Article V Convention of the States. Rand admired our Constitution, even though she could see where it was going. The Constitution gives us the fix for these problems. Support an Article V Convention of the States. And vote more Conservative representatives in place of these RINOs come primary time.
The real problem was we were (and still are) so entrenched in the "mandatory 2 party only system" that any alternative is untenable... You MUST have either A or B, and anything else is a "wasted vote of failure", no matter how bad the A or B choice was or is.
Simply - you are REQUIRED, socially and morally and almost legally to vote for the "Two-Named Monoparty". How many tell you if you vote for someone outside this "you are wasting your vote", or worse, :a vote for (3rd party) is a vote for (insert enemy of the person speaking here)...
So which would you rather have? Lenin or Trotsky? Because they're BOTH the same thing...
Do not forget that Ayn Rand saw and wrote about the demise of the country years ago as I expect many of you knew, I did not have to remind you.
The problem is as she pointed out ALTRUISM. I have believed for many years that the country was doomed as Storo points out. Pity the young!
Yes, and it must be named for what it is........the sacrifice of self to [all] others. I have named it for years, receiving mostly a blank stare reminiscent of a cow.............the responsibility for which lies with education (at all levels) for the last 40+ years.
(sarcasm)
Once the avalanche started it was too late for the pebbles to vote.
Load more comments...